CHARTER REFORM DEADLOCK CONTINUES : STILL NO DECISION ON WHO SHOULD CERTIFY INITIATIVE.

Byline: Patrick McGreevy Daily News Staff Writer

Backers of a charter reform initiative said Tuesday that 175 additional signatures in a random sample of their petitions should be accepted and verified - which would provide just enough to certify the measure for the ballot.

But the city clerk and county registrar of voters continued to withhold a decision on whether or not to certify it, leaving both sides hanging - along with a federal court judge who is waiting to rule on other legal matters involving the measure.

Supporters of the measure said they would consider going to state court today to force the city clerk to certify the petitions.

``You wonder why people lose trust and faith in government,'' said David Fleming, a Studio City attorney and, along with Mayor Richard Riordan, one of the initiative's chief supporters.

``We'll probably sue the city clerk,'' Fleming said.

Mike Keeley, an attorney for the initiative drive, said a recheck of petitions by initiative backers found 32 petition circulators who had been disqualified because they were not registered voters in the city had, in fact, been previously certified by the county registrar of voters as being city voters.

As a result, Keeley said, 175 signatures previously tossed out can be considered valid - and the random sample check has enough signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot.

The Los Angeles County Registrar's Office was notified of the finding late Tuesday but did not immediately verify them.

The initiative remained in limbo Tuesday as the city clerk and the county registrar each continued to maintain that the other should make the decision about whether the initiative is qualified.

The stalemate drew a sharp rebuke from U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer, who said the delay forced her Tuesday to temporarily put off a ruling on how and when a charter reform commission should be elected.

``I think the delay is inexcusable, but it's not anything this court can do anything about,'' Pfaelzer told opposing armies of attorneys for the city and the initiative.

Because the initiative certification process is governed by state law, officials said they would likely have to go to Superior Court to get a judgment forcing either the city clerk or county registrar to certify the petition.

Assistant City Attorney Tony Alperin said it is the city's position that the county registrar is required by state law to do the certification and the city is contemplating going to court itself to force the county to act.

County Registrar Conny McCormack said it is her position that the city clerk is required by law to do the certification.

Fleming charged that acting City Clerk Mike Carey is afraid of certifying the initiative and angering the City Council, which must confirm his appointment as city clerk if he is offered the job on a more permanent basis.

The council has directed the City Attorney's Office to fight the mayor's effort to get Pfaelzer's approval of the timing and method of electing a charter reform commission.

A separate charter reform effort is under way involving a 21-member Charter Reform Commission appointed by the City Council. However, recommendations from that commission will have to be approved by the council before they are submitted to voters.

But council members dispute that they are putting up unreasonable roadblocks.

``I don't think the City Council is standing in the way of charter reform,'' said Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas. ``If anything the City Council is trying to protect the voters of this city from an executive power grab.''

Still, Fleming welcomed Pfaelzer's call for some action on the certification.

``I'm very, very pleased. It's time we got into court where we could get a level playing field,'' Fleming said.

Carey and McCormack did not return calls for comment Tuesday.

Pfaelzer told the 10 attorneys in the courtroom that she had been prepared to rule on a motion by Riordan that would force the City Council to schedule the initiative for the April 8 ballot and to elect a charter reform commission by council district, rather than at large.

``I can't do anything until there is a certification,'' she said. ``I'm absolutely astounded at this behavior. It seems there is an obligation for both parties to complete the (certification) process.''

Lawrence Barth, another attorney for the initiative backers, told the judge that he expects that with the recheck of signatures, certification can be accomplished in the next few days either with the Superior Court's involvement or not.

``I think it (certification) is highly probable if not a virtual certainty,'' Barth told Pfaelzer.

He told the judge he expects to be able to send the certification to her by messenger in the next few days and she promised to issue her ruling within hours.

Although Monday was the deadline for the petitions to be certified, Keeley said the city cannot cause the deadline to be missed by its own actions or inactions, such as refusing to certify based on a turf disagreement with the county.

In addition to the certification deadline, Barth told Pfaelzer the deadline for the City Council to take the certification and order the measure to be placed on the ballot is Jan. 10.

As a result, the measure still can make the April ballot if the initiative is certified and Pfaelzer's ruling is favorable, Fleming and Keeley said.

Fleming said he believes that Pfaelzer is going to favor the position of the initiative's backers that state law requires the council to put the measure on the next regular ballot after it qualifies, which would be April 8.

James Hamilton, an attorney for Riordan, said case law requires an initiative to be placed on the ballot ``without delay'' once it qualifies, which he believes requires it to be put on the April 8 ballot.

``This is an initiative by the people and the people want to vote on it now,'' Hamilton told the judge.

However, Assistant City Attorney Tony Alperin told the judge that state law and the City Charter gives the council discretion to place the measure on the ballot in a reasonable time, which he said could include the June election.

``This is not the same as the city refusing to call an election,'' he said. ``We agree your honor that the city could not put this election off indefinitely.''

However, at the same hearing, Deputy City Attorney Jesse Gonzales said an election for a charter reform commission might have to be delayed ``indefinitely'' to settle the issue of whether it should be done by council district or at large.

Gonzales and Deputy City Attorney Noreen Vincent argued that the mayor's lawsuit uses outdated and possibly inaccurate 1990 census data to back claims that an at-large election would violate the federal Voting Rights Act prohibition on elections that dilute the strength of minority voters.

More time is needed to gather more up-to-date information to make that determination, said Vincent, who noted that the mayor's contention is challenged by the election of Tom Bradley, an African-American, by citywide voters on five occasions.

Ironically, Riordan's attorneys argued that Riordan's election in 1993 is an indication that minority voters have their strength diluted in citywide elections. The attorneys noted that Riordan won election receiving 67 percent of the white vote but only 43 percent of the Latino vote and 14 percent of the African-American vote.